REP. JAMES ROGAN (R-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The House
Judiciary Committee today contemplates Articles of Impeachment against
an incumbent president of the United States. Our committee undertakes
its task in an era where the deceitful manipulation of public opinion
no longer is viewed as evil, but as art. Propaganda once invoked
images of dictators enforcing mind control over the masses. Now we
readily bathe ourselves in spin and we confer the degree of "doctor"
upon those who administer the dosage.

In this very sobering hour, the time has come to strip away the
spin and propaganda and face the unvarnished truth of what this
committee is called upon to review. First, this impeachment inquiry
is not and never was licensed to rummage through the personal
lifestyle of the president of the United States. It is a gross
distortion to characterize his present dilemma as only about sex. As
Governor Weld said earlier this week, adultery is not an impeachable
offense, and the country needs to know that nobody on this committee
seeks to make it so.

If that is true, then why are these unsavory elements of the
president's private life now at issue? It is because the president
was a defendant in a sexual harassment civil rights lawsuit. When
Paula Jones's lawsuit reached federal court, after much consideration,
the trial judge ordered the president to answer under oath questions
relating to other subordinate female employees with whom he might have
solicited or engaged in sexual involvement. This line of questioning
was not invented to torment the president. These questions are
routine and must be answered every day by defendants in harassment
cases throughout the country. Why is this so?

It is because the courts want to see if there is any pattern of
conduct that might show a similar history, either of harassment,
abuse, or granting or denying job promotions. It was in this context
that the president first was asked questions about Monica Lewinsky and
it had nothing to do with Judge Starr, Speaker Gingrich, or any member
of the Congress of the United States.

If lying now becomes acceptable in harassment cases because
candor is embarrassing or because the defendant is just too powerful
to be required to tell the truth, we will destroy the sexual
harassment protections currently enjoyed by millions of women in the
workforce. One cannot fairly claim to support the societal benefits
of these harassment laws on the one hand and then deny the application
of these laws to a defendant merely because he is a president who
shares their party affiliation.

Next, the Constitution solemnly required President Clinton, as a
condition of his becoming president, to swear an oath to preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution and to take care that our nation's
laws be faithfully executed.

That oath of obligation required the president to defend our laws that
protect women in the workplace, just as it also required him to
protect our legal system from perjury, obstruction of justice, and
abuse of power. Fidelity to the presidential oath is not dependent on
any president's personal threshold of comfort or embarrassment.
Neither must it be a slave to the latest polling data. Even more
disturbing is the current readiness of some to embrace out of
political ease a thoroughly bastardized oath, so long as the offender
expresses generalized contrition while at the same time rejecting
meaningful constitutional accountability.

Consider how far afield these new standards would move us as a
nation, since our first president obliged himself to the same oath
that now binds Bill Clinton to the Constitution. On the day George
Washington became our first president, he pledged to our new country
that the foundation of his public policies would be grounded in
principles of private morality. He said that by elevating an
otherwise sterile government to the level of private moral
obligations, our new country would win the affection of its citizens
and command the respect of the world. Most significantly, in his
first presidential address Washington presented himself not as a ruler
of men, but as a servant of the law. He established the tradition
that in America powerful leaders are subservient to the rule of law
and to the consent of the governed.

Two hundred years later, in an era of increasing ethical
relativism, it seems almost foreign to modern ears that the first
speech ever delivered by a president of the United States was a speech
about the relationship between private and public morality. George
Washington was not perfect. He certainly was no saint. But soldiers
knew his bravery on the battlefield. His national reputation for
truthfulness was unquestioned. Washington, a very human being with
very human flaws, still could set by personal example the standard of
measurement for the office of the presidency.

Today, from a distance of two centuries, Washington stands as a
distant, almost mythical figure. And yet President Clinton and every
member of the Congress of the United States have a living personal
connection to him. Like Washington, each of us took a sacred oath to
uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.

There is no business of government more important than upholding
the rule of law. A sound economy amounts to nothing beside it,
because without the rule of law, all contracts are placed in doubt and
all rights to property become conditional.

National security is not more important than the rule of law, because
without it, there can be no security and there is little left
defending. And the personal popularity of any president when weighed
against this one fundamental concept that forever distinguishes us
from every other nation -- no person is above the rule of law.

Mr. Chairman, the evidence clearly shows that the president
engaged in a repeated and lengthy pattern of felonious conduct,
conduct for which ordinary citizens can and have been routinely
prosecuted and jailed. This simply cannot be wished or censured away.
With his conduct aggravated by a motivation of personal and pecuniary
leverage rather than by national security or some other legitimate
government function. the solemnity of my own oath of office obliges me
to do what the president has failed to do -- defend the rule of law,
despite any personal or political costs.

With a heavy heart, but with an unwavering belief in the
appropriateness of the decision, I will cast my vote for articles of
impeachment against the president of the United States, William
Jefferson Clinton.

I yield back the balance of my time.

REP. HYDE: I thank the gentleman. The distinguished gentleman
from South Carolina, Mr. Lindsey Graham.